Below is the unedited penultimate draft of:
Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (19XX). Testosterone and dominance
in men.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, XX (X): XXX-XXX.
The final published draft of the target article, commentaries and
Author's Response currently available only in paper.

Key Terms

In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage
behavior apparently intended to dominate -- to enhance one's status over --
other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent
being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed
nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial
behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement
of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man's basal T level,
predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects
behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status
affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge,
as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after
the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers. Thus, there is a
reciprocity between T and dominance behavior, each affecting the other. We
contrast a reciprocal model, in which T level is variable, acting as
both a cause and effect of behavior, with a basal model, in which T
level is assumed to be a persistent trait that influences behavior. An unusual
data set on Air Force veterans, in which data were collected four times over a
decade, enables us to compare the basal and reciprocal models as explanations
for the relationship between T and divorce. We discuss sociological
implications of these models.

Numerous animal experiments, especially on rodents, show that raising
testosterone (abbreviated T) increases aggressiveness (Svare 1983; Monaghan
and Glickman 1992). In interpreting this work, it is important to distinguish
aggressive behavior from dominance behavior. An individual will be said to act
aggressively if its apparent intent is to inflict physical injury on a
member of its species. An individual will be said to act dominantly if
its apparent intent is to achieve or maintain high status -- i.e., to obtain
power, influence, or valued prerogatives -- over a nonspecific. Rodents
typically dominate aggressively, but that is not true among the higher primates
(Mazur 1973).

Of course, it may be difficult to appraise the intentions of an animal in order
to distinguish dominance from aggression. But when we study humans -- our
focal species here -- it would be naively behavioristic to deny our ability to
read people's intentions, a skill that is the very basis for human sociability
(see Gopnik 1993). Much of interpersonal behavior is overtly or subtly
concerned with managing dominance and subordination without causing physical
harm. Sports, spelling bees, elections, criticism, competitions for promotion,
and academic jousting all involve domination without aggression. It is harder
to identify instances of aggression devoid of a dominating motive, but examples
are infanticide; purely instrumental killings such as sometimes occur in the
execution of felons, murder for hire, or religious sacrifice; circumcision and
ritual mutilation; euthanasia, surgery and dentistry; suicide and self
flagellation; and knowingly causing collateral casualties from military attack.
We may distinguish actions, whether by ourselves or others, that are intended
to dominate, or to injure, or to do both to a target person. We understand
that there are different motivations for dominance and aggression, which
sometimes work concurrently. We may refer to people as dominant, submissive,
aggressive, or nonaggressive, so long as we are clear whether these descriptors
refer to a particular context, or to a disposition toward such motivations and
actions.

The distinction between aggression and dominance is particularly important for
humans, because we often assert our dominance without any intent to cause
physical injury. It may be the case that T is related primarily to dominance
among men and not to aggression except in situations where dominance happens to
be asserted aggressively. Ehrenkranz et al. (1974) showed that socially
dominant but unaggressive prisoners had relatively high T, not significantly
different from the T levels of aggressive prisoners (who may have been dominant
too). Nearly all primate studies that have been interpreted as linking T to
aggression (Dixson 1980) may as easily be interpreted as liking T with
dominance (Mazur 1976). Recent reviewers have questioned whether, among
humans, T is related to aggressiveness per se (Archer 1991; Albert et
al. 1994).

On theoretical grounds, it is clear that dominating mechanisms -- whether
aggressive or nonaggressive in form -- would have evolutionary advantage in
helping an individual acquire valued resources, especially in competition for
mates. This is not simply a matter of a dominant man taking what he wants;
women regard men who look dominant as attractive (Townsend 1993).
Teenage men rated by naive judges as having "dominant looking" faces (often
with prominent chins, heavy brow ridges, muscular rather than fleshy or skinny
faces) report copulating earlier than their submissive-looking peers,
presumably in part because they have an easier time finding willing partners
(Mazur et al. 1994).

It is not obvious why there would be selective advantage in aggressiveness
per se, apart from its dominating function. (Predation for food is a
different matter, unrelated to T.) We therefore frame our inquiry around
dominating (and deferential) behavior as being theoretically prior to
aggressiveness, leaving as an important but subsidiary question why men
sometimes dominate with intent to harm.

An important variant of dominant behavior occurs in settings like schools,
prisons, the military, families or work groups, where authority figures require
behavior to conform closely to rigid standards. In these circumstances,
dominant acting individuals who hold subordinate roles are relatively likely to
break restrictive norms and codes of conduct. Such actions, opposed or hostile
to social institutions and laws, are conventionally defined by sociologists as
antisocial behavior, and are labeled by those in authority as rebellious
or even criminal. We believe antisocial actions are often attempts to dominate
figures in authority (teachers, policemen) or, more abstractly, to prevail over
a constraining environment. Therefore our inquiry focuses on the relationship
of T not only to dominant and aggressive actions, but also to antisocial
behavior.

T is the primary androgen, a class of steroid hormones that develop and
maintain masculine features. Although T is made in the adrenal cortex and
ovary of females, it is produced in far greater amounts by the Leydig cells of
the testis. T in men is secreted into the bloodstream in spurts, so measured
levels can change considerably within a few minutes. The hormone has a
circadian rhythm in both sexes, highest and most variable in the morning, lower
and more stable during the afternoon (Dabbs 1990).

Synthetic modifications of T are pharmacologically more useful than T itself
because they are absorbed more easily when taken as pills or, in the case of
esters such as T propionate, have longer lasting effects when injected. Beside
its androgenic (masculinizing) effects, T also has anabolic
(protein tissue building) qualities that have therapeutic value (Bhasin et al.
1996). The anabolic steroids used by athletes to build muscle mass, reduce fat,
and improve performance are synthetic derivatives of T, designed to maximize
protein synthesis and minimize masculinizing effects, however virilization by
anabolic steroids is never wholly eliminated (Kochakian 1993).

Many effects that we explain today by T deficiency were obtained since ancient
times by castration of men and animals, which was practiced not only to prevent
fertility but also to prevent the development of secondary sexual
characteristics, produce docility, reduce sex drive, and -- in butchered
animals -- to produce fatter, more tender meat. (Among men, testosterone is
inversely correlated with body fat; Mazur 1995.) Castrating a male chick, for
example, makes its adult flesh more edible, and the capon fails to develop the
rooster's head furnishings (red comb and wattles -- markers of reproductive
competence), does not crow or court hens, and does not fight other cocks. In
Asia, eunuchs were presumed to be safe harem guards because of their lack of
both interest and ability to copulate. Male sopranos and contraltos,
emasculated to maintain their prepubescent voice range, were prominent in the
opera and church music of 17th and 18th century Europe.

Our modern understanding began in the 1930s with the isolation and
identification of T. Reminiscent of the Curies' heroic extraction of minute
amounts of radium from a ton of pitchblende, Koch and his coworkers mashed tons
of bull testicles to fractionate ounces of material sufficiently pure to make
the combs of capons grow bright red (de Kruif 1945). (Butenandt distilled
25,000 liters of policemen's urine to obtain 15 mg of another androgen,
androsterone. Kochakian 1993). Identification and synthesis followed quickly,
enabling experimenters to replace or enhance T in animal subjects and human
patients. An example is the classic study of hen peck-orders by Allee et al.
(1939) who injected T propionate into low-ranking hens. These injected females
became aggressive, and each rose in her status hierarchy, some to the top
position. Furthermore, their comb size increased (a male characteristic), egg
laying was suppressed, some began crowing (rare in hens), and a few began
courting other hens.

Until the availability of radioimmunoassay in the 1960s, the measurement of
endogenous T was elusive because it is produced by the body in tiny amounts (Nieschlag and Wickings 1981). A normal man has about one hundred-thousandth
gram of hormone per liter of blood (i.e., ten nanograms/milliliter); women
have roughly one-seventh as much. Soon it was practical to measure free
T (i.e., T not bound to protein, which is assumed to be the physiologically
active portion; Rada, et al. 1976) in saliva with a concentration of about
one-hundredth that of total T in blood (Landman et al. 1976; Wang et al. 1981;
Riad-Fahmy et al. 1982; Dabbs 1991; Dabbs et al. 1995). Collection of saliva
rather than blood has made studies on humans more practical. These remarkable
improvements in method, plus the recent availability of studies including
thousands of men, have expanded our knowledge greatly.

3. TESTOSTERONE WORKS DIFFERENTLY PERINATALLY, AT PUBERTY, AND IN ADULTHOOD

It is now clear that T affects human males importantly but differently at
three stages of life: perinatally (in utero and shortly after birth), during
puberty, and in adulthood. This target article focuses on the adult stage, but
a brief review of earlier effects is worthwhile.

The mammalian fetus of both XX and XY individuals begins with undifferentiated
sexual parts. A gene on the Y chromosome has been identified which causes the
asexual gonads to develop as testes; lacking this gene the gonads become
ovaries. The sex chromosomes have little more to do with sex differentiation
which hereafter is driven by hormones produced in the now sex-specific gonads.
The testes produce T during gestation, and production peaks again a month or
two after birth, then declines by six months of age to the low range seen in
later childhood (Winter et al. 1976). T and other testicular secretions cause
the external genitalia to form into penis and scrotum rather than clitoris and
labia, and internal ducts take the male form. The central nervous system is
masculinized in rats and probably in humans too. The general rule, somewhat
simplified, is that early exposure to greater amounts of T will produce more
male characteristics (masculinization) and fewer female characteristics (defeminization), while less exposure to T will produce the reverse. Perinatal
manipulation of animal subjects, and developmental abnormalities among humans,
show convincingly that even genetic females will show male forms if dosed early
enough with T, and genetic males will show female forms if deprived of the
hormone (Naftolin 1981; Wilson et al. 1981; Breedlove 1992).

Perinatal T exposure affects behavior in a number of animal species (Breedlove
1992). For example, young male rhesus monkeys normally engage in more threats
and rough-and-tumble play than do females, but when T is administered to
pregnant monkeys, their pseudohermaphroditic female offspring exhibit male-type
play behavior. Furthermore, by limiting T administration to the later part of
gestation, female offspring are produced who exhibit male-type play but retain
female appearing genitals, showing that behavioral masculinization is
independent of genital masculinization (Goy et al. 1988). Studies of human
children exposed perinatally to abnormally high or low levels of T are hampered
by methodological problems and not fully consistent but may be construed to
support the primate results (Ehrhardt and Meyer-Bahlburg 1981; Collaer and
Hines 1995).

Many perinatal hormone effects are regarded as organizing the
architecture of the body and brain, and the distribution of hormone receptors,
into a relatively male-like configuration. When male T increases later in life,
it activates these preexisting structures. Thus, behaviors derive from
the interaction of long-term organizational and shorter-term activational
effects.

The testes greatly increase production of T at puberty, elevating prepubescent
serum levels from under 100 ng/dl to adult levels ten or more times higher.
This promotes growth of the penis, larynx (and deeper voice), muscles, beard
and body hair, sex interest, and perhaps combativeness. Boys who are
hypogonadal or castrated before puberty do not experience these changes, but
they can be induced by T replacement therapy.

The best known research on T and aggression among adolescent boys is that of
Olweus and his colleagues in Sweden (Olweus et al. 1980, 1988; Mattsson et al.
1980). Since reviewers sometimes interpret these results more strongly than do
the original investigators, it is worth examining them closely. A group of 40
delinquent boys, ages 14 to 19 years (mean = 16 years), living in an
institution for serious recidivist youth offenders, was compared with a group
of 58 nondelinquent high school students, ages 15 to 17 years (mean = 16
years). The result: T of the delinquents was slightly but not significantly
higher than that of the nondelinquents.

Attempts to relate T to aggressiveness within the delinquent sample
produced marginal results. Boys who committed the most violent crimes had
slightly but not significantly higher T than boys who committed only property
crimes. Ratings of the boys' aggressiveness by institution staff were not
related to T, nor were evaluations of aggressiveness by a psychiatrist. The
boys completed several paper-and-pencil inventories of personality. Four
scales measured forms of aggressiveness, and a fifth measured
dominance/assertiveness. Only one of these five scales correlated
significantly with T. By comparing the eight delinquents with highest T and the
eight with lowest T, one additional scale reached significance with a t-test.
For the delinquent sample overall, the investigators conclude, relationships
between T and their behavioral and personality variables are small in degree (Mattsson et al. 1980).

Comparable attempts were made to relate T to aggressiveness within the
nondelinquent sample of high school boys. Student peers rated the boys on
three forms of aggressive behavior, none of which significantly related to T
(by two-tail tests, although one scale did reach p = .05 with a one-tail test).
The boys completed pencil-and-paper inventories, mostly the same ones given to
the delinquents. Four scales measured forms of aggressiveness, and a fifth
measured antisocial behavior. Only two of these scales correlated
significantly with T. The investigators, summarizing their results for the
nondelinquent boys, note that inventory items which most clearly correlate with
T are those involving an aggressive response to provocation ("When a
teacher criticizes me, I tend to answer back and protest") as opposed to
expressions of unprovoked aggression ("I fight with other boys at
school")(Olweus et al. 1980, 1988). This interpretation associates T with
responses to challenge rather than with aggressiveness per se, but as we
have seen, the empirical results are ambiguous. Acknowledging this
uncertainty, the Swedish investigators suggest that the causal effects of T be
evaluated further using a longitudinal design.

Udry and his colleagues have used just such a longitudinal method. In
preliminary work, Udry examined the correlation of T with behavior in a
cross-sectional study of boys 12- to 13-years old, the approximate age of
puberty. He reported a correlation between T and sexual activity (sexual
ideation, petting, and first coitus),and between T and norm-violating
problem behavior (aggression, dominance, antisocial acts), even when level of
pubertal development (pubic hair, genital growth) is controlled (Udry et al.
1985; Udry 1988, 1990). However, when Udry and his colleagues attempted to
extend these results with a three-year panel study, following similar boys
until ages 15 or 16 years, they found no correlation between T, measured in the
later years of the study, and behavior during those same years. Nor were
changes in T related to behavior. They conclude that there was no direct
hormone effect on the boys' behavior. Instead, they argue, T acts indirectly
through pubertal development, which is a social stimulus explaining sexual and
antisocial behavior among young adolescent boys (Drigotas and Udry 1993;
Halpern et al. 1993).

Other researchers also report little or no relationship between level of serum
T and problem behavior among young boys. A pair of studies of86 normal
boys, ages 9 to 14 years, showed no correlation between T and aggression as
measured from videotapes and mother reports (Susman et al. 1987; Inoff-Germain
et al. 1988). In a study of 18 highly aggressive prepubertal boys, ages 4 to
10, T levels were no higher than those of nonaggressive controls (Constantino
et al. 1993).

Based on the work at hand, especially the methodologically strong studies by
Udry's group, we believe that around puberty, the effect of T on behavior works
primarily through long-term reorganization of the body, including increased
size, muscle mass, and the appearance of secondary sexual characteristics.
(This physical transition from boy to young man probably builds upon structures
laid down perinatally.) Maturation produces profound social effects on the
adolescent. His peers, parents, and other authorities all treat him
differently because he has "suddenly" grown up. Thus, T affects adolescent
behavior mostly through indirect social responses, elicited by maturation,
rather than through direct activation of target receptors by T in the
bloodstream. This is a provisional conclusion because much remains to be
learned, but studies to date give little consistent indication that circulating
T level per se affects behavior as much as the overall masculinization
of the body during the teen years.

By the late teens, with puberty over, the physical shape and organization of
the body and neurohormonal system are established (until the degradations of
old age), so our concern during adulthood is solely with the behavioral effects
of T circulating in the blood, available to receptors in the brain and other
organs (Strumf and Sar 1978; McEwen 1981). T levels peak in the late teens and
early 20s, and then usually decline slowly throughout adult life in men
(Davidson et al. 1983; Dabbs 1990; Simon et al. 1992; but see Tsitouras et
al. 1982 for a contrary result). There are similar age trends for male libido,
aggressiveness, and antisocial deviance, all being highest among
teenagers and men in their early 20s, then diminishing (Segall 1979; Wilson
and Herrnstein 1985; Gagnon et al. 1994). However, the causal connection from
hormones to behavior remains open to question.

Most evidence indicates that men require a minimum level of circulating T for
normal sexual activity (e.g., Davidson et al. 1979; Bagatell et al. 1994). The
literature does contain reports of castrated men who continue sexual relations
in varying degrees -- sometimes approaching normality -- without T replacement
(Carter 1992). Questions may be raised about the authenticity of some of these
reports, but some appear reliable. Castrates are not totally devoid of T; they
produce a small amount in the adrenal cortex (Nieschlag and Wickings 1981). The
common occurrence of penile erection in prepubertal boys shows that vaginal
penetration could be obtained with little circulating T. However, most
researchers agree that a full repertoire of male sexual behaviors, including
libidinous feelings and ejaculation, is unlikely without a T level near
normal.

Does high circulating T make a man more sexual than average in his behavior?
Reviewing the limited literature, Kemper (1990) argues, partly on theoretical
grounds, that a normal man's temporal fluctuations in T substantially affect
his sexuality, with heightened T especially causing an increase in libidinous
feelings and tendency to masturbate. We are dubious and tentatively accept at
face value the usual finding that level of circulating T explains little -- at
most modest -- variation in sexual behavior, as long as hormones are within the
normal range (Brown et al. 1978; Tsitouras et al. 1982; Davidson et al. 1983;
Yesavage et al. 1985; Sadowsky et al. 1993). Also, we know that causation can
work in the opposite direction as when men's T rises after viewing erotic
material (Hellhammer et al. 1985) or after coitus (Kraemer et al. 1976). The
administration of exogenous T to 31 normal men in stable heterosexual
relationships, nearly doubling circulating T for up to eight weeks, had no more
effect than a placebo on overt sexual behavior, but it did increase some sexual
attitudes (Anderson et al. 1992). The usual decline of T with age explains
little of the decline in sexual activity with age (Tsitouras et al. 1982;
Davidson et al. 1983). Overall, fluctuations in T (within the normal range)
have little effect on men's sexual behavior as long as a minimum amount of
hormone is present. May the same be said for T's effect on dominance and
aggression?

By the end of puberty, usually about age 16 years, the physical form of a boy
has changed into that of a man so T can no longer influence behavior through
major reorganization of the body. However, the level of T circulating in the
bloodstream may affect dominating or aggressive behavior by activating
receptors in organs or the nervous system.

Because of the practical and ethical difficulties in observing or even
allowing high aggression in human subjects, researchers are often tempted to
measure aggression, or aggressive or hostile feelings, by administering
paper-and-pencil tests. A few positive correlations have been reported between
T and such measures (Persky et al. 1971; Ehrenkranz et al. 1974; Olweus et al.
1980, 1988; Harris et al. 1996), but more typical are failures to find
this relationship (Brown and Davis 1975; Doering et al. 1975; Kreuz and Rose
1972; Meyer-Bahlburg et al. 1973; Monti et al. 1977; Rada, Laws, and Kellner
1976; Huesmann et al. 1984; Dabbs et al. 1991; Anderson et al. 1992;
Bagatell et al. 1994). It seems clear that T is not related in any consistent
way with aggression as measured on common personality scales. Furthermore,
performance on these paper-and-pencil tests is not always correlated with
actual aggressive acts and there is little evidence of their relevance to
violent or dominant behavior (Buss et al. 1968; Kreuz and Rose 1972; Brain
1994). We agree with Archer (1991) that studies based on self-assessment of
aggressive traits or predispositions have limited relevance.

Focusing on more concrete indicators of behavior, and on males who have passed
through puberty, there are several reports associating relatively high T with
dominant, aggressive, or antisocial actors, including several studies of men in
jail. Kreuz and Rose (1972), studying 21 prisoners aged 18 to 35 years, found
no significant T difference between those who fought a lot while in prison and
those who did not fight, however prisoners with a prior record of violent and
aggressive crimes had significantly higher T than those without such a history.
Ehrenkranz et al. (1974) studied 36 prisoners aged 18 to 45 years who were
sorted into three groups: those with chronic aggressive behavior, those
socially dominant without physical aggressiveness, and those who were neither
aggressive nor dominant; T levels were not significantly different between the
aggressive and dominant groups, but both had significantly higher T than the
group that was neither aggressive nor dominant. Rada, Laws and Kellner (1976)
report that rapists who were most violent in the act have higher T than less
violent rapists or normal men; however, there were only five rapists in their
"most violent" group, and they could not clearly replicate their finding in a
subsequent study (Rada et al. 1983). Dabbs et al. (1987), studying 89 adult
male inmates, found T related to violence of their crimes, and peer ratings of
toughness. In another group of 113 male inmates, aged 17 to 18 years, Dabbs et
al. (1991) found that those high in T committed more violent crimes, were
judged more harshly by the parole board, and violated prison rules more often
than those low in T. In yet another group of 490 prison inmates, their mean
age 20 years, T was related to violence of the crime, and with violating rules
in prison, especially rules involving overt confrontation, leading the
investigators to characterize high T individuals as "dominant and
confrontational" (Dabbs et al. 1995). On the other hand, Bain et al. (1987)
found no significant difference in T between men charged with murder or
assault, and those charged with property crimes.

Studies done outside prison walls show mostly corroborative results if we
again focus on behavioral indicators rather than paper-and-pencil personality
tests, and on males who have completed puberty. Scaramella and Brown (1978),
studying 14 male college hockey players aged 18 to 23, found a significant
correlation between T and coach ratings of players' aggressiveness in response
to threat. Jeffcoate et al. (1986), studying four male physicians aged 28 to
38 who were confined on a boat for a two-week holiday cruise, report T to be
correlated with the physicians' assertive and dominant behavior, as ranked by
three women also on the boat. Lindman et al. (1987), studying 25 men aged 22
to 27, found significantly higher T among those judged by their peers to be
most aggressive while drunk. Banks and Dabbs (1996) found higher mean T among
16 young men they classified as "delinquent," based on flamboyant dress, drug
use, and violence, than among 15 college men. Using an unusually large sample
of 4,462 male army veterans in their 30s and 40s, several investigators (Dabbs
and Morris 1990; Booth and Osgood 1993; Booth and Dabbs 1993; Mazur 1995)
show T to be significantly related to self-reports of diverse antisocial
behaviors, including childhood truancy, trouble as an adult on the job and with
the law, marital disruption, drug and alcohol abuse, violent behavior, and
military AWOL -- mostly indicators of rebelliousness and assertive norm
breaking.

Overall, there is considerable evidence from a variety of settings that in
men, circulating T is correlated with dominant or aggressive behavior, and
antisocial norm breaking. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, and
the questions remains: Is high T a cause of dominant and antisocial
behavior? This question could be answered with a double-blind experiment
comparing the behavior of normal men whose T levels had been altered to that of
a control group. Recent interest in T as a male contraceptive has led to
studies of this kind, primarily to assess the effect of altered T on sexual
behavior (Anderson et al. 1992; Bagatell et al. 1994). Subjects in both
studies were given paper-and-pencil measures of aggression, which showed no
change in the hypothesized direction, but we have already seen that these tests
are inadequate. The incorporation of established laboratory methods for
measuring dominant behavior would improve such experiments as tests of the
dominance hypothesis (e.g., Weisfeld and Beresford 1982; Gladue et al. 1989;
Mazur and Cataldo 1989; Kalma 1991).

Kouri et al. (1995) have moved in this direction, but with only six subjects.
These normal young men were given increasingly high doses of T cypionate (150
mg/week for two weeks, 300 mg/week for two weeks, and 600 mg/week for two
weeks) or placebo using a double-blind, randomized, cross-over design. Each
subject was tested for "aggressive" behavior by being placed in a lab setting
and paired with another (fictitious) subject. The experimenter explained that
each member of this pair could, by pushing an appropriate button, reduce the
cash that would be paid to his opposite number. The subject was then made to
believe that his fictitious opposite was indeed taking this punitive action
against him. In this provocative situation, subjects made significantly more
punitive button pushes while receiving T than placebo. (Non-punitive button
pushes did not differ between T and placebo conditions.)

Further attempts have been made to evaluate the causal effect of T by looking
at treatment of prisoners or patients with castration or chemical androgen
suppressers to control aggression (Heim and Hursch 1979; Brain 1984, 1994).
It is difficult to assess claims of reduced violence and recidivism because
reports are often anecdotal, based on few cases, and when castration is
involved there is no way to separate the effect of T reduction from the
symbolic effect of mutilation. Some reports are so zealous in their advocacy
of treatment that they lack credibility (Mazur 1983). Rates of violence and
recidivism after treatment are not always compared with rates for similar men
who were not treated. As a result, the record of these treatments tells us
little more than is known from the long history of castration.

Attempts have also been made to evaluate the behavioral effect of T by analogy
with the behavioral effects of anabolic steroids (Bahrke 1993). Illegal use
of these drugs by young men (and some women) to improve their athletic
performance, aggressiveness, or physical appearance is now widespread. Many
different steroids are used, often "stacked" in diverse combinations and
regimens. There have been numerous claims of violent outbursts or "roid rages",
and of psychotic symptoms, as a result of doses that far exceed therapeutic
levels (Taylor 1991; Pope and Katz 1990). These too are difficult to evaluate
because of their anecdotal nature and our ignorance of the prevalence of morbid
symptoms among athletes in the absence of steroid use. Methodological
improvements were made in Pope and Katz's (1994) comparison of 88 athletes who
were using steroids with 68 nonuser athletes. Nearly a quarter of the users
reported major mood syndromes (mania, hypomania, or major depression), a
significantly higher rate than reported by these same men in the absence of
steroid exposure, and significantly higher than the rate for nonuser athletes.
Su et al. (1993) produced diverse mood changes -- positive and negative -- in
20 normal men, compared to a placebo condition, by administering an anabolic
steroid (methyl T) at therapeutic doses (far below illicit dosage). The latter
studies strengthen the claim that anabolic steroids can affect mood in a morbid
way, but the association of such mood changes with aggressive, dominant, or
antisocial behavior remains anecdotal. Also, recall that anabolic steroids are
deliberately designed to minimize androgenic consequences, so their behavioral
effects should differ from those of endogenous T. Furthermore, steroid abusers
take amounts that far exceed normal physiological levels, which makes the
relevance of their results to the normal situation dubious. Overall, available
data on illicit experiences with anabolic steroid tell us little about the
effect of T on dominance.

It seems likely that in the near future, properly controlled experiments will
convincingly test whether or not T is a cause of dominant behavior in men. At
present, however, this remains an unconfirmed hypothesis.

If there is a link between T and dominance, primate studies suggest a
reciprocity of effects. Not only does T affect dominance, but changes in
dominance behavior or in social status cause changes in T level (Rose et al.
1975). We have stronger evidence on this reverse effect in humans
because studies of it require no drug administration and can therefore be done
by researchers other than physicians; also, T levels can be obtained from
subjects' saliva, which is easily collected. By now there have been several
reports of T changes in young men during athletic events, which are convenient
research settings because they are stylized dominance contests involving
face-to-face competition with a clear winner and loser.

Male T varies in predicable ways both before and after competitive matches.
First, athletes' T rises shortly before their matches, as if in anticipation of
the competition (Campbell et al. 1988; Booth et al. 1989). This
pre-competition boost may make the individual more willing to take risks (Daltzman and Zuckerman 1980) and improve coordination, cognitive performance,
and concentration (Herrmann et al. 1976; Klaiber et al. 1971; Kemper 1990).

Second, for one or two hours after the match, T levels of winners are high
relative to those of losers (Mazur and Lamb 1980; Elias 1981; Campbell et al.
1988; Booth et al. 1989; also see Johnsen and Zuk 1995, for the same effect
in male red jungle fowl). This rise in T following a win is associated with
the subject's elated mood. If the mood elevation is lessened because the
subject has won by luck rather than through his own efforts, or because he does
not regard the win as important, then the rise in T is lessened or does not
occur at all (Mazur and Lamb 1980; McCaul et al. 1992). When Salvadore et al.
(1987) did not obtain the win-loss effect on T among amateur judo competitors,
they explained that their subjects did not take the matches seriously.

The above results were obtained in physically taxing sports. However, as
theorists we are more interested in the less vigorous competition of everyday
social interaction and symbolic changes in social status (Kemper 1990; Mazur
1985). Additional studies show the same pattern of male T responses during
nonphysical contests or ritual status manipulations. First, T rises shortly
before chess matches (Mazur et al. 1992) or laboratory contests of reaction
time (Gladue et al. 1989: Figure 1), and in subjects confronted with a symbolic
challenge from an insult (Nisbett and Cohen 1996). Second, T levels of winners
are high relative to those of losers following chess matches (Mazur et al.
1992) and contests of reaction time, especially if subjects' moods are
appropriately positive or negative (Gladue et al. 1989; McCaul et al. 1992).
Similar effects occur among sports fans who are not themselves participants in
the physical competition. Following the 1994 World Cup soccer tournament in
which Brazil beat Italy, T increased significantly in Brazilian fans who had
watched the match on television, and decreased in Italian fans (Fielden et al.
1994).

The hormone-depressing effect of status loss is shown in a study by Kreuz et
al. (1972), who found that the T of officer candidates was abnormally low
during the early, most degrading weeks of Officer Candidate School, but their T
returned to normal during the relaxed weeks just prior to graduation.
Similarly, T among prisoners dropped after admission to an incarceration
program modeled after military boot camp (Thompson et al. 1990). Mazur and
Lamb (1980) found that T of medical students rose after their graduation
ceremony when their mood was elated. During the first days of freedom for 52
Americans who had been held captive in Iran for 15 months, a period of elation
over their improvement in status, the former hostages' T was highly elevated (Rahe et al. 1990). Thus, the T pattern appears in nonphysical as well as
physical competition, and in response to symbolic challenges and status changes
among men.

The function of the elevated T following a win and the drop in T following a
loss is not known. One possibility is that winners are soon likely to face
other challengers; the high T may prepare them for this eventuality. The drop
in T among losers may encourage withdrawal from other challenges, thus
preventing further injury.

Despite considerable speculation that T is associated with aggression or
status in women (Kemper 1990), the empirical literature is scant and disparate.
Purifoy and Koopmans (1979) report that T in 55 women increased with the status
of their occupations. Ehlers et al. (1980), studying women who were patients
in a neurological clinic, found significantly higher T among relatively
aggressive patients compared to less aggressive ones, but these groups also
differed in diagnosis, making the comparison suspect. Dabbs et al. (1988) saw
no difference in T between 84 women in prison and 15 college women, but women
convicted of unprovoked violence had higher T than other prisoners. Dabbs and
Hargrove (1996) found no significant relationship between T and extent of
criminal violence among 87 female inmates, but T was significantly related to
"aggressive dominant behavior" while the women were in prison. Banks and Dabbs
(1996) found higher mean T in 13 delinquent young women than in 21 female
college students. Gladue (1991) found T to be negatively related to self
reported aggression in 32 women. Cashdan (1995) found status (as judged by
peer assessments) among 32 college women to be negatively correlated with T,
although the women's self assessment of their own status was positively
correlated with the hormone. Also among these college women, T was negatively
correlated with frequency of smiling, the absence of which is sometimes
regarded as an indicator of dominance. The lack of consistency among these
correlational findings is a caution to await further research.

The issue of sex differences has been addressed by asking how men and women
respond to an identical competitive situation. T was assayed from saliva given
by young men and women before, during, and after competing with a same-sex
partner in a video game (Mazur et al. 1995). The hormonal response to the
competition was different in each sex. Males showed the usual pre-contest rise
in T but females did not. Males did not show the usual result that T of
winners is higher than that of losers, apparently because the video game
produced no mood difference between male winners and losers. A mood difference
was produced between female winners and losers, but even with this precondition
met, female T showed no specific response to the competition. Booth and Dabbs
(1995) report a consistent finding from their study of 6 female basketball
players, whose T was generally not responsive to the anticipation or outcome of
their games. These results suggest that the effect of competition on T is
specific to men.

Does T play a role in daily challenges to status, either from strangers or
from people well known to us? Like all primates, humans in face-to-face groups
form themselves into fairly consistent dominance/status hierarchies so that
higher-ranked members have more power, influence, and valued prerogatives than
lower-ranked ones (Mazur 1973). Ranks are allocated either
cooperatively, by consensus of those involved, or competitively,
when there is disagreement over who should outrank whom.

To appreciate a person's decision to compete or cooperate, visualize two
individuals (Ego and Alter) meeting for the first time. If their interaction
is very brief or casual, the notion of ranking may never arise. However, in
more extended or serious meetings, each will size up the other and gain some
sense of their relative standings. If Ego thinks that Alter's status does or
should exceed his own, he may defer to Alter without any dispute. In human
terms, Ego may believe that Alter belongs in the higher rank, that Alter
deserves it, that Alter could easily take it if Ego resisted, or that Alter
would be more competent in the duties of high rank. In any case, ranks are
allocated quickly and cooperatively. If Ego and Alter do not agree on their
relative standings, then they may either break off the interaction or vie for
the contested rank.

Ego's decision to compete or to comply will also depend on his motivation to
dominate, which we believe is related to his T level (among other factors). A
man who has experienced a recent rise in T, perhaps from a victory or a
symbolic elevation in status, will be unusually assertive and may challenge
someone of relatively high status. If both Ego and Alter decide to compete,
their relative ranks are then determined by the outcome of one or more short
dominance contests between them.

Nonhuman primates are commonly observed to establish and maintain their status
hierarchies through a series of short face-to-face competitions between members
of the group. Some competitions involve fierce combat; others are mild, as
when one animal is obviously the more powerful and assertive or the other
appears fearful. In such cases, a simple stare by the powerful animal,
followed by the fearful animal's eye aversion or by its yielding something of
value (perhaps food or a sitting place), may suffice. Sometimes a single
contest is all that is needed to allocate ranks or to verify a preexisting rank
relationship, but often the outcome is settled only after a series of
contests.

According to our model of dominance contests (Mazur 1985, 1994; Brinkerhoff
and Booth 1981), a psychophysiological mechanism operating across this range of
competition is the manipulation of stress levels. An exchange of threats or
attacks is seen as an attempt by each animal to "outstress" or intimidate the
other by inducing fear, anxiety, or other discomfort. Stress is experienced as
both a feeling of discomfort and a syndrome of neurological responses (Axelrod
and Reisine 1984). The animal that outstresses his adversary is the winner.

The model becomes clearer if we consider a concrete example (Mazur et al.
1980). Consider two strangers, Ego and Alter, whose eyes meet, by chance,
across a room. Let us say that one of the strangers, Ego, decides to hold the
stare. The chance eye contact now becomes a dominance encounter. Ego's stare
makes Alter uncomfortable. Alter may then avert his eyes, thus relieving his
discomfort while, in effect, surrendering, or he may stare back, making Ego
uncomfortable in return. In the latter case, the staredown would continue,
with each individual attempting to outstress the other until finally one person
succumbed to the discomfort (and the challenger) by averting his eyes. The
matter thus settled, the yielder usually avoids further eye contact, though the
winner may occasionally look at the loser as if to verify his victory.

In this example, Ego's stare is assumed to elicit feelings of stress in Alter.
Alter's eye aversion is assumed to relieve his own felt stress. Staring -- the
stress-inducing behavior -- is a dominant sign associated with high status.
Eye aversion is a deferential sign associated with low status. In other words,
a dominant act (staring) elicits stress in the recipient; a submissive act
(eye aversion) relieves stress in the actor. It is a central assumption of
this model that most dominant and deferential acts work this way, inducing or
relieving stress, respectively. These acts are the means whereby the
adversaries wage their stress contest, each aiming "darts" at the other.
Finally, when the stress is too great for one, he switches from dominant to
deferential actions, thereby relieving his stress and simultaneously signaling
his acceptance of the lower rank.

Within hours of this outcome, we assume Ego (the loser) experiences a drop in
T, reducing his assertiveness, diminishing his propensity to display the
dominant actions associated with high status, and increasing his display of
such submissive signs as stooped posture, smiling, or eye aversion (Mazur
1985). Faced with a new dominance encounter, Ego is more likely than before
to retreat or submit. On the other side Alter, the winner, experiences the
opposite effects: rising T, increased assertiveness, and a display of dominant
signs such as erect posture, sauntering or striding gait, and direct eye
contact with others. Alter may seek out new dominance encounters and is
bolstered to win them. This feedback between high (or low) T and dominant (or
submissive) demeanor would help to explain the momentum often associated with
strings of triumphs or defeats: success begets a high T response which begets
more dominant behavior which begets more success.

Nisbett (1993; Nisbett and Cohen 1996) has attributed the historically high
violence in the American South, compared to the North, to its "culture of
honor" whereby Southern men, when challenged by insults to themselves or their
families, are required to defend themselves as virtuous warriors or else lose
face. Apparently as a result, Southern men are unusually alert to possible
insults, reacting dominantly -- sometimes violently -- to speech or actions
that might not be perceived as injurious in other cultures.

Leaving aside the particular historic roots of the South, there may be a
general hypersensitivity to insult in any subculture that is (or once
was) organized around young men who are unconstrained by traditional community
agents of social control, as often occurs in frontier communities, gangs, among
vagabonds or bohemians, and after breakdowns in the social fabric following
wars or natural disasters. When young men place special emphasis on protecting
their reputations, and they are not restrained from doing so, dominance
contests become ubiquitous, the hallmark of male-to-male interaction (Thrasher
1963, Sanchez-Jankowsky 1991).

The leading student of street behavior in America's inner cities, sociologist
Elijah Anderson (1994), vividly portrays the importance of dominance contests
and their constant presence for poor young black men:

(M)ost youths have...internalized the code of the streets..., which chiefly
(has) to do with interpersonal communication..., (including) facial
expressions, gait, and verbal expressions -- all of which are geared mainly to
deterring aggression....

Even so, there are no guarantees against challenges, because there are
always people looking for a fight to increase their share of respect -- of
"juice," as it is sometimes called on the street. Moreover, if a person is
assaulted, it is important, not only in the eyes of his opponent but also in
the eyes of his "running buddies," for him to avenge himself. Otherwise he
risks being "tried" (challenged) or "moved on" by any number of others. To
maintain his honor he must show he is not someone to be "messed with" or
"dissed."

...The craving for respect that results gives people thin skins. Shows of
deference by others can be highly soothing, contributing to a sense of
security, comfort, self-confidence, and self-respect.... Hence one must be
ever vigilant against the transgressions of others or even appearing as if
transgressions will be tolerated. Among young people, whose sense of
self-esteem is particularly vulnerable, there is an especially heightened
concern with being disrespected. Many inner-city young men in particular crave
respect to such a degree that they will risk their lives to attain and maintain
it (Anderson 1994: 88-89).

The honor subculture, the defense of one's reputation from insult, has been
amply demonstrated by social scientists to be a feature of life for young men
in the inner city (Anderson 1978, 1991; Horowitz 1983; Katz 1988).

We know from laboratory and athletic studies that T rises in men awaiting a
contest, regardless of the eventual outcome of that contest. Generalizing to
the street, hormone levels should be elevated in young men who are constantly
vigilant against assaults on their reputations. Of course, T is also affected
by the outcome of the contest, so persistent losers might be hormonally
depressed, but most men -- those with mixed outcomes or better -- should have
elevated T.

A caveat: Stressors such as weight loss, surgery, or military training
sometimes depress T (Kreuz et al. 1972; Strauss et al. 1985; Booth et al.
1993). If all stressors depressed T, then the stressful challenges of
inner-city street life should lower the hormone, not elevate it. However, not
all stressors are the same, and social challenges in particular evoke hormonal
responses different from those due to surgery or weight loss. Indeed, we have
already seen that T reliably rises in the face of competitive
challenges, even while cortisol (the "stress hormone") goes up as well (Booth
et al. 1989; Elias 1981; Salvador et al. 1987; Gladue et al. 1989). Thus,
stress effects do not negate the hypothesis that street challenges elevate male
T.

We may use this hypothesis to interpret reported racial differences in T. A
comparison of black and white boys aged 6 to 18 years, mostly preteens, showed
no significant race difference in T (Richards et al. 1992). By adulthood,
black males do have significantly higher T levels than white males (Ross et al.
1986; Ellis and Nyborg 1992), possibly reflecting the higher defensive demands
on black men during young adulthood.

The data set used by Ellis and Nyborg (1992) came from 4,462 army veterans,
ranging in age from 30 to 47, and permits a finer grain analysis (Mazur 1995).
Among veterans older than the median age of 37 years -- too old to be involved
in inner-city honor cultures -- the T of blacks is no higher than that of
whites. Furthermore, among younger veterans who have gone to college -- and
thus are unlikely to be inner-city residents -- there is no significant race
difference in T. Only among youngerveterans with little
education do we find T in blacks to be unusually high, significantly higher
than in whites. These younger black men, poorly educated, most of them urban
residents, are most likely to participate in the honor subculture, and that may
be the reason for their elevated T.

The reciprocal linkage between hormones and behavior suggests that if T levels
among young men in the inner city are heightened by their constant defensive
posture against challenge, then these high hormone levels in turn encourage
further dominance contests. Feedback between challenge and T may create a
vicious circle, sometimes with lethal effects.

A basalmodel is usually used in describing the causal effects
of T on behavior, meaning that each man's T measurements represent short-term
fluctuations around his characteristic basal level, which is genetically based,
and that by adolescence or shortly afterward, this basal level is more or less
consistent from year to year. Consistent with this model, reliabilities from r
= .50 to .65 are reported for T measurements taken (at the same time of day to
control for circadian variation) over periods ranging from days to six years
(Booth and Dabbs 1993), showing that men with relatively high T at one time
tend to be relatively high at other times too. On the assumption that basal
hormone levels are consistent, they necessarily predate any post-adolescent
behavior and so cannot be a consequence of that behavior. Furthermore, since
basal levels are stable, it follows that they can be adequately measured at any
time, whether before or after the behavior, and therefore can be adequately
assessed in a cross-sectional study. Going further, basal hormone level is
regarded as a prima facie cause of any post-adolescent behavior that it
predicts, especially if the effect persists after controlling for alternate
explanations.

We contrast the static basal model with a dynamic reciprocal model in
which T and status competition influence one another, going up or down
together. The observed reliability of a man's T measurements from year to year
may reflect his stable social position rather than his genetically determined
basal level. Current data are insufficient to choose one model over the other,
so we regard both as viable and heuristically useful.

The power of the basal model is illustrated by its ability to predict behavior
from T measured at a single point in time. It suggests, for example, that men
with high basal T tend toward dominating or antisocial behavior which disrupts
family functioning, leading eventually to divorce. Pursuing this reasoning,
Julian and McKenry (1989) found in a small sample of men that T levels are
negatively related to marital satisfaction. A more extensive analysis of data
from 4,462 former military servicemen in their 30s and 40s showed that males
with higher T (measured once) are less likely to marry and more likely to
divorce (Booth and Dabbs 1993). The likelihood of never marrying is 50% higher
for men whose T is one standard deviation above the mean compared to those one
standard deviation below the mean. Similarly, among men who have married,
those at the higher level of T are 43% more likely to divorce than those at the
lower level. Once married, men with higher T are 31% more likely to leave home
because of a troubled relationship with their wife, 38% more likely to have
extramarital sex, and 13% more likely to report hitting or throwing things at
their spouse. In addition, high T men are more likely to report a lower
quality of marital interaction. The occurrence of these behaviors increases
continuously with T; it is not limited to men with exceptionally high T.

Using the same sample of men, correlations between T and education, and
between T and income, are significantly negative but small in magnitude. Dabbs
(1992) coded the status of the occupations of these men, using U.S. Census
categories, and showed a correlation with T of -.11 (p = .001). Professional
and technical workers had lower levels of T than service and production
workers. The unemployed had the highest level of T. There was no evidence of
a threshold effect.

The men with higher levels of T are more likely to be arrested for offenses
other than traffic violations, to buy and sell stolen property, incur bad
debts, and use a weapon in fights (Booth and Osgood 1993). Those with a T
level one standard deviation above the mean are 28% more likely to engage in
criminal behavior than those one standard deviation below the mean. Again, no
evidence of a threshold effect was observed. In addition, those who were
delinquent as juveniles were more likely to commit crimes as adults if they had
higher levels of T.

An analysis of factors that predict exposure to military combat reveals that T
increases the likelihood of exposure (Gimbel and Booth 1994). It is unclear
whether high T individuals take an active role in seeking out combat or if
those in command recognize behaviors that make the individual a better
combatant and assign him accordingly. It is also possible that high T
individuals are antisocial enough to get combat assignments as punishment. In
any case, the basal model shows impressive predictive ability.

Unfortunately these findings, based on data measured at a single point in
time, cannot tell us whether the men with marital and other difficulties always
had relatively high T, as assumed in the basal model, or if discord surrounding
their problems produced elevated T, which in turn exacerbated the discord, as
assumed in the reciprocal model.

An unusual opportunity to compare the two models is presented by a panel study
of 2,100 male Air Force veterans who received four physical examinations,
roughly three years apart, over a decade (Wolfe et al. 1990; Mazur and
Michalek 1995). Correlations between T levels measured in any two exams range
from r = .47 to .61, showing the expected consistency across years.

There was little behavioral measurement in this study, but marital status was
determined at each examination. T, as measured four times during the decade,
could accordingly be correlated with marital status at each exam. Among the 16
possible correlations, 10 were significantly positive, replicating Booth and
Dabbs' (1993) association of high basal T with divorce. However, we find that T
measured rightafter the divorce is the best predictor, giving a
regression coefficient roughly twice as large as does T when measured five
years away from the divorce. This higher T with proximity to divorce indicates
that the reciprocal model is also at work.

Furthermore, men who divorced during the decade of the study had elevated T in
the examinations just before and after their breakups, compared to examinations
further removed in time. The T of men who married during the decade fell as
they made the transition from bachelor to husband, and T remained low among
stably married men. Thus, T is highly responsive to changes in marital status,
falling with marriage and rising with divorce.

These results have an easy interpretation in the reciprocal model. Normal
marriages are secure and supportive, more free from stress than single life,
consistent with the relatively low cortisol found in married Air Force
veterans. Single men are more likely than married men to face confrontations
and challenges and, lacking the social support of a spouse, they are more
likely to face situations where they must watch out for themselves, acting
defensively and adopting protective postures. These are precisely the kinds of
situations in which T rises. The abrupt act of marriage is the culmination of
a longer and more gradual period of courtship and engagement, in which a man
accepts the support of his partner, removing himself from the competitive area
in which he has operated with his fellows. It is for this reason, we suggest,
that T declines with marriage.

Similarly, a divorce is discreet in time but the breakup of a marriage is a
process usually spanning years both before and after the legal announcement
(Booth and Amato 1991). Typically it is accompanied by arguments and
confrontations, the kinds of events associated with high T, both as cause and
effect (Booth et al. 1985). We suggest that most men undergoing this level of
challenge, unless persistently defeated, will experience rising T, which in
turn encourages further confrontation with their estranged wives. Reciprocity
is thus an appealing model here, but we also need the basal model to explain
why men initially high in T have more propensity to divorce.

Perinatally and during puberty, the effects of T on behavior appear to work
primarily through long-term reorganizations of the body and neurohormonal
system, and only secondarily through short-term activation. By the end of
puberty, usually around age 16 years, the body is nearly at its adult form so
behavior is affected primarily by the level of T circulating in the
bloodstream which can activate steroid receptors.

We share doubts expressed by Archer (1991) and Albert et al. (1994) that
circulating T directly affects human aggression -- the intentional infliction
of physical injury. We favor instead the hypothesis that high or rising T
encourages dominant behavior intended to achieve or maintain high status
(implying power, influence, and valued prerogatives). Usually humans express
dominance nonaggressively. We leave as an important but subsidiary question
why men sometimes dominate with intent to harm.

When military, school, or legal authorities require the behavior of
subordinates to conform to rigid norms or laws, those people in subordinate
roles who are motivated to act dominantly are likely to do so by breaking these
norms or laws. In such settings, high or rising T encourages actions
conventionally regarded as rebellious, antisocial, or even criminal.

Studies using various paper-and-pencil self reports of aggressive/hostile
moods or personalities have not been generally successful in demonstrating
relationships to T, nor have we found such instruments reliable in our own
research. Using more direct indicators or inventories of behavior, studies in
both prisons and free settings fairly consistently show significant
correlations between T and dominating behaviors (with or without
aggressiveness), and between T and diverse antisocial or rebellious actions.
Although we regard the correlation between T and dominant or antisocial
behavior as well supported, heightened T has not been established as a
cause of these behaviors. Attempts to appraise hormonal causation by
evaluating the use of castration or chemical androgen suppressers on prisoners
or patients, or the illicit use of anabolic steroids, have not been helpful
because of methodological difficulties. We are just beginning to see proper
double-blind experiments testing the effect of T on dominant behavior as
measured with established laboratory procedures.

There is strong correlational and experimental evidence that T responds in
predictable ways both before and after competitions for status. First, T rises
shortly before a competitive event, as if anticipating the challenge. Second,
after the conclusion of competition, T in winners rises relative to that of
losers. T also rises after status elevations, and it falls after status
demotions. These effects require the presence of appropriate mood changes --
elation or dejection -- accompanying the status changes. Limited evidence
suggests that this pattern of T responses is specific to men.

People in face-to-face groups form themselves into fairly consistent status
hierarchies. Usually ranks are allocated cooperatively, but sometimes people
compete for high rank in dominance contests where each contestant tries to
outstress the other until one concedes, accepting the lower rank. We propose
that high or rising T, by encouraging dominant behavior, induces men to
compete for high status. The experience of winning or successfully defending
high rank boosts T, which in turn encourages more dominant behavior. The
experience of losing depresses T, encouraging a switch from dominant to
deferential behavior. This mechanism explains the momentum associated with
winning or losing streaks.

"Honor subcultures" are communities in which young men are hypersensitive to
insult, rushing to defend their reputations in dominance contests. Challenges
are pervasive and have the effect of elevating T among those who participate in
them (unless they are persistently defeated). Heightened T may in turn
encourage more challenge behavior, producing a vicious circle.

This reciprocal model implies feedback between T and dominance, each
reinforcing the other. It contrasts with the customary basal model in
which an individual's basal level of T is presumed to be a fairly stable trait
that predicts his behavior. Most studies cannot distinguish between the basal
and reciprocal models because their data are collected at one point in time.
An exception is a study of marital status among 2,100 male Air Force veterans
who received four medical examinations over a ten year period. Among these
men, T levels fall and remain low with marriage, and rise with divorce, rather
than remaining constant. These results, although limited in scope, favor the
reciprocal model over the basal model. The basal model, on the other hand,
better explains the propensity for divorce among men who were initially high in
T. We tentatively regard both models as viable. The basal model has the
pragmatic advantage of predicting behavior when T is measured at a single point
in time.

The reliable association of high T with antisocial behaviors, including
marital disruption and violent criminality, raises an interesting puzzle.
These negative behaviors foster downward social mobility. Under the basal
model, which assumes T level to be a persistent trait, we should expect an
accumulation of high T men in the lower ranks of society. Indeed, as we
have noted, correlations between T and various measures of socioeconomic status
(occupation, income, education) are significantly negative. But they are slight
in magnitude. Thus, leaving aside honor subcultures, we find little
concentration of men with high T in the lower classes. Why not? One
possibility is that the downward flow of high T men who are antisocial is
nearly balanced by an upward flow of high T men who are prosocial. This
hypothetical stream of prosocial high-T men remains invisible to us, so far,
perhaps because past studies have used as subjects mostly working class men or
convicts, who have limited opportunities for legitimate advancement.

The nearly uniform distribution of T across social classes is less puzzling
under the reciprocal model, which regards T as malleable rather than a stable
personality trait. Again excepting honor subcultures, where challenges are
exceptionally common, dominance contests probably occur nearly as frequently
among elites as in the working class, as often in the boardroom as on the shop
floor. Therefore, T responses to challenge, and to winning and losing, should
be distributed fairly evenly across classes. Under this reciprocal model, we
would expect little accumulation of T at the bottom levels of society.

The applicability of one model or the other would be elucidated by studying
the relationship of T to behavior among upper class men who have favorable
social opportunities and strong incentives for pro social behavior.

Nieschlag, E. and E. Wickings. 1981. "The role of testosterone in the
evaluation of testicular function." Pp. 169-196 in Guy Abraham (Ed.),
Radioassay Systems in Clinical Endocrinology. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Please note that the sale of DHEA or Melatonin is not available, legally in Australia or any member nations of the
European Union (excluding the United Kingdom & Switzerland). Customers
must have a valid prescription in order to purchase
these products in Australia or any member nations of the European Union (excluding the United Kingdom &
Switzerland)

Disclaimer: The Hormone Shop LLC assumes no
liability, whether under a theory of contract, tort, negligence, product
liability or otherwise. In no event shall The Hormone Shop LLC be liable for any
direct or indirect, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or exemplary
damages, or for any loss incurred due to results or comments that are reported
or the use of collection materials that are supplied, or any prescriptions
regardless of whether The Hormone Shop LLC knew or should have known of the
possibility of such damages. Furthermore, in no event shall
The Hormone Shop LLC's total cumulative liability exceed The Hormone Shop LLC's
net profit on any specific product, sample or consultation
giving rise to the liability. The Hormone Shop LLC specifically assumes no
liability incurred by any 3rd party associate and if you
are reading this web site in a language other that English it has been machine
translated by SYSTRAN who strives to achieve the highest possible accuracy,
however no automated translation is perfect nor is it intended to replace human
translators. Users should note that the quality of the source text significantly
affects the translations and The Hormone Shop LLC assumes no liability for
incorrect or misleading translations. The questions and comments
appearing in the "Discussion Group Forum" are strictly from unknown or
unidentified sources and the reader/participant should be aware that credentials
from any source are completely lacking and should be questioned. The
Hormone Shop LLC specifically assumes no liability for any comment or advice
appearing in the "Discussion Forum".

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food &
Drug
Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, cure, treat or
prevent
any disease. If pregnant or lactating, consult a physician before using.

Notice: This information on anti-aging
products is
provided for educational and nutritional purposes. Any medical procedures,
dietary changes or the use of dietary supplements discussed herein should only
be undertaken on the advice of a qualified medical doctor. Although listed and
sold as dietary supplements these are not innocuous, inert substances; rather they can and
do affect vital systems within the human body and it is for this reason that you
are urged to find a medical doctor who will work with you in monitoring and
maintaining your well being.